ASSIGNMENT
OF SOCIAL SECURITY
NUMBERS TO NONCITIZENS
WITH FIANCÉ VISAS

May 2008

A-08-07-17044

AUDIT
REPORT

Mission

By conducting independent and objective audits, evaluations and investigations,
we inspire public confidence in the integrity and security of SSA's programs
and operations and protect them against fraud, waste and abuse. We provide timely,
useful and reliable information and advice to Administration officials, Congress
and the public.

Authority

The Inspector General Act created independent audit and investigative units,
called the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The mission of the OIG, as spelled
out in the Act, is to:

Conduct and supervise independent and objective audits and investigations
relating to agency programs and operations.
Promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within the agency.
Prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in agency programs and operations.
Review and make recommendations regarding existing and proposed legislation
and regulations relating to agency programs and operations.
Keep the agency head and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems
in agency programs and operations.

To ensure objectivity, the IG Act empowers the IG with:

Independence to determine what reviews to perform.
Access to all information necessary for the reviews.
Authority to publish findings and recommendations based on the reviews.

Vision

We strive for continual improvement in SSA's programs, operations and management
by proactively seeking new ways to prevent and deter fraud, waste and abuse.
We commit to integrity and excellence by supporting an environment that provides
a valuable public service while encouraging employee development and retention
and fostering diversity and innovation.

MEMORANDUM

Date: May 6, 2008

To: The Commissioner

From: Inspector General

Subject: Assignment of Social Security Numbers to Noncitizens with Fiancé
Visas (A-08-07-17044)

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to assess the Social Security Administration's (SSA) process
for assigning Social Security numbers (SSN) to noncitizens with fiancé
visas.

BACKGROUND

Each year, thousands of U.S. citizens petition the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) to allow their foreign fiancé to visit the United States under
a K 1 visa. The foreign national must marry the petitioner within 90 days of
arriving in the United States or leave. After marriage, noncitizens with K 1
visas may adjust their temporary immigration status to a permanent resident.

Under §205(c)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Social Security Act, SSA is required
to assign SSNs "to aliens at the time of their lawful admission to the
United States either for permanent residence or under other authority of law
permitting them to engage in employment in the United States. . . ." Because
Federal law authorizes K 1 visa holders to work incident to their visa status,
K 1 visa holders are eligible for SSNs.

In addition, the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) requires that K 1 visa
holders who seek employment must also apply for an Employment Authorization
Document (EAD) with DHS. However, SSA policy states that an unexpired I 94 (Arrival/Departure
Record) with a "K 1" admission code confirms work authorization for
a foreign fiancé, and therefore SSA does not require that K 1 visa holders
present an EAD when applying for an SSN. The Agency established its policy based
on the Immigration and Naturalization Service's, now DHS, guidance in 1998.
At that time, DHS could not always process and issue an EAD to K 1 visa holders
before their 90 day stay in the United States expired. DHS sent a memorandum
to SSA clarifying which evidentiary documents established K 1 visa holders'
work authorization. DHS' memorandum advised SSA that "Evidence of K-1 status
includes an unexpired Form I-94 showing admission as a K-1 nonimmigrant with
an admission period of 90 days or an EAD referring to INS regulations at 8 CFR
274a.12(a)(6)." [Emphasis added]

Noncitizens with K 1 visas applying for an original SSN must complete, sign
and submit an Application for a Social Security Card (Form SS 5) at an SSA field
office and provide acceptable evidence of (1) age, (2) identity, and (3) work-authorized
immigration status. SSA policy requires that field office personnel verify these
individuals' immigration status with DHS before processing the SSN application.
In Calendar Year 2005, SSA assigned approximately 14,000 original SSNs to K
1 visa holders.

To accomplish our objective, we obtained a data extract of 10,293 original
SSNs SSA assigned to K 1 visa holders from April 1 through December 31, 2005.
From this population, we randomly selected a sample of 250 records to determine
whether the K 1 visa holder (1) married and changed his/her immigration status,
(2) departed the United States or (3) remained in the United States beyond the
date DHS authorized. We also reviewed SSA's policies and procedures for assigning
SSNs to K 1 visa holders and obtained information from DHS and Department of
State representatives regarding our 250 sample records. Because the subject
of this report involves immigration enforcement and visa-related issues, we
plan to share our report with DHS and Department of State Inspectors General.
Appendix B includes a detailed description of our scope and methodology, and
Appendix C contains our sample results and projections.

RESULTS OF REVIEW

We believe SSA's policy, which permits the Agency to assign SSNs to K 1 visa
holders without requiring that they present an EAD, creates opportunities for
SSN misuse. Additionally, we are concerned that having an SSN makes it easier
for K 1 visa holders who do not marry to remain in the country after their immigration
status expires. DHS and Department of State personnel with whom we spoke told
us K 1 nonimmigrant visas have traditionally been problematic because of the
misuse and fraud associated with this category. Based on our sample analysis,
we estimate that SSA assigned about 371 SSNs during our audit period to K 1
visa holders who did not marry their American petitioner and remained in the
United States beyond the date DHS authorized (see Appendix C, Table 1). Furthermore,
some of these individuals had wages posted to their earnings records after their
immigration status expired. While DHS regulations authorize K 1 visa holders
to work and the Social Security Act allows K 1 visa holders to obtain an SSN
before they marry, we question the prudence of regulations that allow SSN assignment
to K 1 visa holders who may only be in the country for 90 days or less and choose
not to marry their American petitioner.

SSA instituted policies and procedures to prevent improper SSN assignment.
Yet, they can only be effective if personnel processing SSN applications comply
with them. Of the 250 K 1 SSN applications we reviewed, 17 (7 percent) contained
compliance errors. As such, we estimate personnel did not fully comply with
SSA's policies and procedures when processing SSN applications for about 700
noncitizens with K 1 fiancé visas (see Appendix C, Table 2). Occurrences
of noncompliance included SSA field office personnel (1) improperly assigning
original SSNs when K 1 visa holders' immigration status had expired or would
expire within 14 days and (2) incorrectly coding the citizenship/work authorization
status of K 1 applicants.

SSA NEEDS TO ASSESS ITS POLICY AND THE IMPACT OF ASSIGNING SSNS TO K 1 VISA
HOLDERS

We believe SSA should strengthen its evidentiary requirements for assigning
SSNs to K 1 visa holders. Although DHS regulations authorize K 1 visa holders
to work based on their visa status, DHS regulations also state that an EAD is
evidence of their work authorization. However, SSA does not require that K 1
visa holders present an EAD as proof of their work authorization. The Agency
established this policy based on a 1998 memorandum from DHS. According to SSA,
DHS advised that its processing time for issuing an EAD hindered K 1 visa holders'
SSN attainment before their authorized 90 day stay in the United States expired.
As such, we believe the Agency should seek clarification from DHS to determine
whether Federal law requires an EAD as proof of K 1 visa holders' work authorization-and,
if so, the Agency should correct its policy accordingly.

We acknowledge law and DHS regulations authorize K 1 visa holders to work.
We also realize the Social Security Act requires that SSA assign SSNs to those
who are eligible to receive one. However, we believe assigning an SSN to K 1
visa holders who choose not to marry makes it easier for them to remain in the
country after their immigration status expires. DHS and Department of State
personnel with whom we spoke acknowledged K 1 visas are problematic because
some individuals commit marriage fraud or overstay their authorized period of
admission. In fact, a consular officer in the Department of State's Fraud Preventions
Program stated many K 1 visa applicants do not marry the petitioner. Additionally,
DHS' Immigration and Customs Enforcement initiated almost 200 administrative
cases involving K 1 visa holders who violated or may have violated the conditions
of their immigration status by committing marriage fraud or remaining in the
United States beyond the date authorized. Furthermore, some of the overstayers
DHS identifed continued working after their immigration status expired.

Unauthorized work by nonimmigrants may require that the Agency pay them future
benefits. In addition, nonimmigrants who overstay their authorized periods of
admission can potentially affect homeland security because they may obtain employment
in sensitive areas, such as airports, hospitals, or mass transit systems.

Although our sample review found K 1 visa holders generally fulfilled their
visa requirements by marrying the petitioner or departing, not all did. Of the
250 SSN applications we reviewed, DHS could not verify the status or departure
for 9 (4 percent) K 1 visa holders. Consequently, we believe these individuals
may have remained in the United States beyond their DHS authorized stay. As
such, we estimate about 371 K 1 visa holders who obtained an SSN during our
audit period overstayed their admission period. Of the nine who overstayed,
we determined that some did not work during their authorized period of admission,
while others worked after their immigration status expired. Additionally, two
of these K 1 visa holders married someone other than the petitioner, and DHS
denied them an adjustment of their immigration status. Finally, one K 1 visa
holder may have presented SSA an invalid marriage certificate because the issuing
Bureau of Vital Statistics told us the marriage certificate number was too old
for their 2005 records-which was the year the K 1 visa holder alleged she married.
To further substantiate that the marriage certificate may have been counterfeit,
DHS records did not indicate the K 1 visa holder married or adjusted her immigration
status. We believe these examples illustrate SSA's exposure to potential SSN
misuse. Therefore, we believe SSA should work with DHS to explore the possibility
of not granting work authorization to K 1 visa holders until they marry-thus,
limiting SSN assignment.

FIELD OFFICE PERSONNEL DID NOT ALWAYS COMPLY WITH ENUMERATION POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES WHEN PROCESSING SSN APPLICATIONS

Of the 250 K 1 SSN applications we reviewed, 17 (7 percent) contained compliance
errors. As such, we estimate personnel did not fully comply with SSA's policies
and procedures when processing SSN applications for about 700 noncitizens with
K 1 fiancé visas. Occurrences of noncompliance included SSA field office
personnel (1) improperly assigning original SSNs when K 1 visa holders' immigration
status had expired or would expire within 14 days and (2) incorrectly coding
the citizenship/work authorization status of K 1 applicants.

Field Office Personnel Improperly Assigned SSNs

SSA policy states field office personnel should not process an SSN application
when an individual's DHS document or immigration status has expired or will
expire within 14 calendar days. However, in 8 (3 percent) of the 250 sample
SSNs we reviewed, SSA personnel processed SSN applications for K 1 visa holders
whose I 94s had expired or would expire within 14 days. As such, we estimate
SSA improperly assigned approximately 329 SSNs to K 1 visa holders during our
9 month audit period (see Appendix C, Table 3).

Field office personnel used the Agency's SS 5 Assistant and/or Modernized Enumeration
System (MES) to process the SSN applications. We believe field office personnel
did not carefully examine the expiration date on I 94s to ensure K 1 visa holders
were eligible for an SSN. While SSA created an edit in its SS 5 Assistant to
alert staff when immigration documents have expired or will expire within 14
days, this edit is not functional for SSN applications that are pending and
processed later. We discussed the 14 day expiration rule and SS 5 Assistant's
edit limitation with SSA representatives responsible for this system. They informed
us that they would determine whether implementing a corresponding edit is feasible.
We realize SSA is developing a new SSN processing system, the SSN Application
Process, which replaces the SS 5 Assistant and MES, and we believe SSA should
consider a corresponding edit in the new system design.

SSA's SSN processing systems generate an evidence code (or IDN) on each numberholder's
Numident record based on data field office personnel input to document the applicant's
citizenship category, place of birth and work authorization status. Thus, the
Numident's system generated evidence code reflects numberholders' citizenship/work
eligibility. After reviewing our sample SSN applications, we determined the
evidence SSA recorded on SSN applications did not always support the evidence
codes found on K 1 visa holders' Numident records. For example, some K 1 visa
holders did not provide SSA with documents indicating they had married and adjusted
their immigration status to permanent. However, their Numident evidence code
indicated they were permanent residents. Because there appears to be some confusion
regarding the evidence codes field office personnel should use for K 1 visa
holders-as evidenced by our audit findings-we believe SSA should periodically
review evidence codes on K-1 SSN applications to ensure accuracy. Furthermore,
the Agency should correct the Numident evidence code errors identified in this
review.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

We question whether SSA policy and practices for assigning SSNs to K 1 visa
holders who do not present a work authorization document create opportunities
for SSN misuse. We also question whether assigning SSNs to K 1 visa holders
who may be in the country for 90 days or less and who do not marry is prudent.
We acknowledge that law and DHS regulations authorize K 1 visa holders to work,
thus permitting them to obtain SSNs before they marry. However, we believe SSA
should not assign SSNs to K 1 visa holders until they marry and adjust their
immigration status with DHS.

Despite SSA's controls to prevent improper SSN assignment, it is at-risk for
such activity when field office personnel do not fully comply with policies
and procedures. We recognize SSA's efforts cannot eliminate all SSN application
processing errors. Nonetheless, we believe SSA has a stewardship responsibility
to ensure compliance with all policies and procedures and improve the integrity
of the enumeration process.

Accordingly, we recommend that SSA:

1. Seek clarification from DHS on whether K 1 visa holders must provide the
Agency with an EAD as evidence of work authorization when applying for an SSN.
If DHS specifies that K 1 visa holders must present an EAD as proof of work
authorization, SSA should change its policies to reflect the requirement.

2. Discuss with DHS the feasibility of not granting work authorization to K
1 visa holders until they marry-thus, limiting SSN assignment.

3. Consider implementing an edit in the Agency's SSN processing systems that
would prevent assignment of SSNs for pending SSN applications when the noncitizen's
DHS document and/or status has expired or will expire within 14 days.

SSA agreed with our recommendations. The Agency's comments are included in
Appendix D.

OTHER MATTER

During our review of SSN applications, we found that field office personnel
recorded "none" in the I 94 expiration date field or left it blank
for 15 (6 percent) of the 250 K 1 SSN applications we reviewed. As such, we
estimate SSA did not record an I 94 expiration date for about 618 K 1 SSN applications
during our audit period (see Appendix C, Table 5).

When there is no I 94 expiration date recorded in a K 1 SSN application, SSA
cannot determine whether the K 1 visa holder was eligible to receive an SSN
at the time of assignment. While we realize SSA must rely on DHS to record the
expiration date on the I 94, we believe omission of the expiration date in an
SSN application defeats the purpose of the Agency's 14 day expiration rule.
We encourage SSA to discuss the absence of I-94 expiration dates with DHS-and
relay SSA's need for this information to ensure proper SSN assignment.

Appendix A
Acronyms
C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
INA Immigration and Nationality Act
K 1 Classification for a Nonimmigrant Fiancé of a U.S. Citizen
MES Modernized Enumeration System
POMS Program Operations Manual System
SSA Social Security Administration
SSN Social Security Number
U.S.C. United States Code

Forms
I-94 Arrival/Departure Record
SS-5 Application for a Social Security Card

Appendix B
Scope and Methodology

To achieve our objective, we:

Reviewed applicable Federal laws, regulations and the Social Security Administration's
(SSA) policies and procedures for assigning original Social Security numbers
(SSN) to noncitizens with a nonimmigrant fiancé (K 1) classification.

Visited two SSA field offices in California and interviewed SSA personnel from
a Texas field office and the Brooklyn and Las Vegas National Card Centers. We
spoke with representatives from SSA's Office of Income Security Programs, who
are familiar with the K 1 classification. We also spoke with representatives
from the New York Regional Office's Center for Automation concerning the SS
5 Assistant.

Obtained a data extract from SSA's Modernized Enumeration System (MES) Transaction
History File from April 1 through December 31, 2005. From this extract, we identified
a population of 10,293 SSNs assigned to noncitizens with a K 1 classification
and randomly selected and reviewed 250 SSN records.

Contacted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to determine each K 1 visa
holder's current immigration status. We provided DHS with the name, date of
birth and I 94 (Arrival/Departure Record) number SSA recorded on each SSN applicant's
SS 5, Application for a Social Security Card.

Contacted the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support
Enforcement, to determine whether Section 466(13) of the Social Security Act
mandates that noncitizens who do not have an SSN and plan to marry a U.S. citizen
must obtain an SSN before they apply for a license.

The SSA entities reviewed were the Offices of the Deputy Commissioner for Operations
and the Deputy Commissioner for Retirement and Disability Policy (formerly known
as the Deputy Commissioner for Disability and Income Security Programs). We
conducted this performance audit from November 2006 through September 2007 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based
on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix C
Sample Results and Projections

To assess the Social Security Administration's (SSA) process for assigning
Social Security numbers (SSN) to noncitizens with K 1 fiancé visas, we
obtained a data extract of 10,293 original SSNs the Agency assigned to K 1 visa
holders from April 1 through December 31, 2005. From this population, we randomly
selected a sample of 250 records to determine whether (1) the K 1 visa holder
remained in the United States beyond the date DHS authorized (overstayed their
visa) and (2) field office personnel complied with SSA's enumeration policies
and procedures when processing K 1 visa holder SSN applications.

Table 1: K 1 Visa Holders Who Remained in the United States Beyond Their DHS
Authorized Stay (Overstayed Their Visa)
Total Population of K 1 Visa Holders Assigned SSNs from April 1 through December
31, 2005
10,293 Sample Size 250
Number of Instances in Sample Where K 1 Visa Holders Remained in the United
States Beyond Their DHS Authorized Stay 9
Estimate of Instances in Population Where K 1 Visa Holders Remained in the United
States Beyond Their DHS Authorized Stay 371
Projection - Lower Limit 196
Projection - Upper Limit 635
Table 2: Aggregate Field Office Noncompliance with SSA Policies and Procedures
Total Population of K 1 Visa Holders Assigned SSNs from April 1 through December
31, 2005 10,293
Sample Size 250
All Instances in Sample Where Field Office Personnel Did Not Comply With SSA
Policies and Procedures 17
Estimate of All Instances in Population Where Field Office Personnel Did Not
Comply With SSA Policies and Procedures 700
Projection - Lower Limit 453
Projection - Upper Limit 1,028
Table 3: Field Office Noncompliance: Improper SSN Assignment
Total Population of K 1 Visa Holders Assigned SSNs from April 1 through December
31, 2005 10,293
Sample Size 250
Number of Instances in Sample Where Field Office Personnel Improperly Assigned
SSNs 8
Estimate of Instances in Population Where Field Office Personnel Improperly
Assigned SSNs 329
Projection - Lower Limit 166
Projection - Upper Limit 584
Table 4: Field Office Noncompliance: Incorrectly Coded SSN Application
Total Population of K 1 Visa Holders Assigned SSNs from April 1 through December
31, 2005 10,293
Sample Size 250
Number of Instances in Sample Where Field Office Personnel Incorrectly Coded
K 1 Visa Holders' SSN Application 9
Estimate of Instances in Population Where Field Office Personnel Incorrectly
Coded K 1 Visa Holders' SSN Application 371
Projection - Lower Limit 196
Projection - Upper Limit 635
Table 5: No I 94 Expiration Date Recorded in SSN Applications
Total Population of K 1 Visa Holders Assigned SSNs from April 1 through December
31, 2005 10,293
Sample Size 250
Number of Instances in Sample Where Field Office Personnel Did Not Record an
Expiration Date for K 1 Visa Holders' I 94s 15
Estimate of Instances in Population Where Field Office Personnel Did Not Record
an Expiration Date for K 1 Visa Holders' I 94s 618
Projection - Lower Limit 386
Projection - Upper Limit 932
All projections made at the 90 percent confidence level.

Appendix D
Agency Comments

MEMORANDUM

Date: April 21, 2008

To: Patrick P. O'Carroll, Jr.
Inspector General

From: David V. Foster
Chief of Staff

Subject: Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Draft Report, "Assignment
of Social Security Numbers to Noncitizens with Fiancé Visas" (A-08-07-17044)--INFORMATION

We appreciate OIG's efforts in conducting this review. Our response to the
report findings and recommendations are attached.

Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. Staff inquiries may
be directed to Ms. Candace Skurnik, Director, Audit Management and Liaison Staff,
at extension 54636.

COMMENTS ON THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) DRAFT REPORT, "ASSIGNMENT
OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS TO NONCITIZENS WITH FIANCÉ VISAS" (A-08-07-17044)

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report. We
agree that protecting the integrity of the Social Security number (SSN) is critical
to our agency. We appreciate the report's acknowledgement that we are required
by law to assign SSNs to aliens at the time of their lawful admission to the
United States either for permanent residence or under authority of law permitting
them to engage in employment in the United States. Our responses to the specific
recommendations are provided below.

Recommendation 1

Seek clarification from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on whether
K 1 visa holders must provide the Agency with an Employment Authorization Document
(EAD) as evidence of work authorization when applying for an SSN. If DHS specifies
that K 1 visa holders must present an EAD as proof of work authorization, we
should change our policies to reflect the requirement.

Response

We agree. We have already contacted DHS to ask if the guidance they provided
us in 1998 and 1999 is still current; namely, that a K-1 fiancé is considered
to be work authorized based on either the I-94 or an EAD. We anticipate that
a complete DHS response should be received by the end of fiscal year (FY) 2008.
If DHS advises that an EAD is required, we will update the Program Operations
Manual System (POMS) instructions.

Recommendation 2

Discuss with DHS the feasibility of not granting work authorization to K 1
visa holders until they marry-thus, limiting SSN assignment.

Response

We agree. We have asked DHS if they are, in general, considering any revisions
to their regulations regarding work authorization for K-1 visa holders and,
more specifically, if there is any discussion to not grant work authorization
until the K-1 fiancé marries. We anticipate that a complete DHS response
should be received by the end of FY 2008. If DHS decides not to grant work authorization
to a K-1 visa holder until he/she marries, we will work with DHS to determine
what immigration documents the spouse would have from DHS since his/her K-1
status would no longer be valid.

Recommendation 3

Consider implementing an edit in the SSN processing systems that would prevent
assignment of SSNs for pending SSN applications when the noncitizen's DHS document
and/or status has expired or will expire within 14 days.

Response

We agree. We are currently redesigning the Modernized Enumeration System to
the new Social Security Number Application Process (SSNAP) and plan to include
in the SSNAP system edits that would address this recommendation by not accepting
the document or allowing processing of the document if it has expired or will
expire within 14 days.

We agree. We will review a sample of K-1 SSN applications on an annual basis
to ensure field office personnel accurately record evidence codes. We will conduct
the first review in the May-June 2009 timeframe.

For additional copies of this report, please visit our web site at www.socialsecurity.gov/oig
or contact the Office of the Inspector General's Public Affairs Specialist at
(410) 965-3218. Refer to Common Identification Number A-08-07-17044.

Overview of the Office of the Inspector General
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is comprised of an Office of Audit
(OA), Office of Investigations (OI), Office of the Chief Counsel to the Inspector
General (OCCIG), Office of External Relations (OER), and Office of Technology
and Resource Management (OTRM). To ensure compliance with policies and procedures,
internal controls, and professional standards, the OIG also has a comprehensive
Professional Responsibility and Quality Assurance program.

Office of Audit
OA conducts financial and performance audits of the Social Security Administration's
(SSA) programs and operations and makes recommendations to ensure program objectives
are achieved effectively and efficiently. Financial audits assess whether SSA's
financial statements fairly present SSA's financial position, results of operations,
and cash flow. Performance audits review the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness
of SSA's programs and operations. OA also conducts short-term management reviews
and program evaluations on issues of concern to SSA, Congress, and the general
public.

Office of Investigations
OI conducts investigations related to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement
in SSA programs and operations. This includes wrongdoing by applicants, beneficiaries,
contractors, third parties, or SSA employees performing their official duties.
This office serves as liaison to the Department of Justice on all matters relating
to the investigation of SSA programs and personnel. OI also conducts joint investigations
with other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.

Office of the Chief Counsel to the Inspector General
OCCIG provides independent legal advice and counsel to the IG on various matters,
including statutes, regulations, legislation, and policy directives. OCCIG also
advises the IG on investigative procedures and techniques, as well as on legal
implications and conclusions to be drawn from audit and investigative material.
Also, OCCIG administers the Civil Monetary Penalty program.

Office of External Relations
OER manages OIG's external and public affairs programs, and serves as the principal
advisor on news releases and in providing information to the various news reporting
services. OER develops OIG's media and public information policies, directs
OIG's external and public affairs programs, and serves as the primary contact
for those seeking information about OIG. OER prepares OIG publications, speeches,
and presentations to internal and external organizations, and responds to Congressional
correspondence.

Office of Technology and Resource Management
OTRM supports OIG by providing information management and systems security.
OTRM also coordinates OIG's budget, procurement, telecommunications, facilities,
and human resources. In addition, OTRM is the focal point for OIG's strategic
planning function, and the development and monitoring of performance measures.
In addition, OTRM receives and assigns for action allegations of criminal and
administrative violations of Social Security laws, identifies fugitives receiving
benefit payments from SSA, and provides technological assistance to investigations.